faqs

The publishing platform is controlled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and uses technology and editorial services provided by F1000 Research Limited.

The Gates Foundation is providing this platform to its grantees so they can easily comply with the Foundation's Open Access Policy. By using Gates Open Research, grantees can make their funded research available as soon as it is ready by publishing it as a preprint on our associated preprint server, VeriXiv, undergo open peer review there, increase the speed with which research is disseminated and enable the sharing of results across the scientific community.

Yes. Wellcome, another large funder of biomedical research in the UK, already offers this platform for its funded research - Wellcome Open Research, as do a growing number of other funding bodies, such as the Irish Health Research Board (HRB) with HRB Open Research.

Gates Open Research is another publishing option for the foundation’s funded research. There are several benefits to researchers who choose to publish on this new platform:

• Authors, not editors, choose what they wish to publish.
• Rapid publication allows the sharing of new findings without any delay.
• Supports publication of a wide range of outputs - from standard research articles to data sets, from new insights to confirmatory or negative results.
• Authors can choose reviewers most appropriate to their subject and whose opinions they value, and can cite the open review comments that vouch for the quality of their work. For submissions after August 2024, peer reviiew actually takes place on our associated preprint server, VeriXiv.
• The inclusion of supporting data facilitates reanalysis, replication and reuse and thus improves reproducibility.

• In addition to the advantages listed above, there are added benefits to early career researchers (ECRs) publishing on this platform:
• Open Research publishing increases visibility and maximizes the societal impact of the research.
• Accelerating the speed of publication and the ability to share findings and data, coupled with open peer review, allows researchers to quickly disseminate work for the application of their next position and/or grant.
• PhD projects often produce negative/null findings that are typically hard to publish – this platform enables ECRs to share this work and build up an adequate publication record for their next position, irrespective of the final outcome of their project.
• Open peer review enables ECRs to start an open and constructive dialogue with other experts in the field and build potentially important new connections and networks, who might become future collaborators or provide opportunities for future career options.

The Foundation strongly supports initiatives aimed towards direct evaluation of research and that all outputs should be judged on their own merit regardless of the venue of publication. Gates Open Research is fully embedded in the established scholarly publication framework, ensuring all publishing standards are adhered to. Article-level metrics (e.g. citations, views, downloads, altmetrics) will enable direct evaluation of the research output itself, and are in line with initiatives that aim to improve the evidence base on which researchers are evaluated.

Gates Open Research does not have an Impact Factor. The Gates Open Research model provides the start of an evolution in scientific publishing that moves away from the use of such measures.

Individual articles will display article-level metrics as and when applicable, such as Altmetrics; Scopus and PubMed citations for articles that have passed peer review; and the number of views and PDF downloads on Gates Open Research and in PubMed Central.

Articles published on this platform will not incur any costs to the authors. These costs will be covered directly by the Gates Foundation.

• Peerwith
• AuthorAid
• Edanz
• Editage
• American Journal Experts
• Enago

Gates Open Research is not a preprint server. While both enable authors to rapidly publish their findings, Gates Open Research submissions from before August 2024 were automatically followed by invited transparent peer review. Gates Open Research managed the peer review, thus completing the publication process. Once published on Gates Open Research, the publication could not be submitted elsewhere.

For articles submitted after August 2024, they will first be published as preprints on our associated preprint server, Verixiv and will undergo peer review there. Only once they have met the ‘passed peer review’ threshold will the version of record then be published on Gates Open Research.

Yes, for papers submitted before August 2024 all articles are published irrespective of the peer review status. “Peer review” and “publication” are two independent concepts. Most journals peer review and then publish; we publish and then peer review.

For articles submitted after August 2024, they will first be published as preprints on our associated preprint server, Verixiv and will undergo peer review there. Only once they have met the ‘passed peer review’ threshold will the version of record then be published on Gates Open Research.

Gates Open Research provides Gates-funded researchers with a place to rapidly publish any of their results, including data sets, negative results, protocols, case reports, incremental findings as well as more traditional narrative-based articles.

Gates Open Research publishes original research articles on all topics that receive grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In addition, it hosts posters, slides and documents, such as grant reports, which are not peer reviewed.

Gates Open Research publishes standard research articles, methods, software tools, systematic reviews, as well as data notes, case reports and case series (‘Clinical Practice Articles’), study protocols and research notes. For a detailed description of each article type, please see our article guidelines. Gates Open Research welcomes positive, negative or null studies, replication studies and refutation studies equally.

We are using the CRediT taxonomy to capture author contributions as we believe that having more detail of who did what brings transparency, enables recognition for researchers, and provides greater accountability for all involved. Upon submission you will be asked to select from a 14-item list all the contributions made by each author. For more information, click here.

For articles submitted prior to August 2024, if the author list of an article changes following its publication, a new version of the article can be published, with an explanation included in the ‘Amendments’ section at the top of the new version. As each version of an article has its own DOI, these can be individually cited and accessed. Therefore, the authorship list can change without affecting earlier versions of the article. The authorship contributions must also be revised accordingly.

Any changes in authorship must be confirmed by all authors in writing or over email, and the corresponding author is responsible for obtaining this confirmation from their co-authors. The Gates Open Research editorial team may contact any co-authors directly to obtain this confirmation.

Anyone who has contributed to the study but does not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. It is the authors responsibility to obtain permission to include the name and affiliation, of all those mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.

Conducting peer review after publication removes the delay for others who can benefit from accessing the work during the review period. Closed review processes typically take many months. The model used by Gates Open Research removes the possibility of an article being blocked or held up by a single editor or reviewer. It also allows other researchers in the field to judge the work for themselves and start building upon it, perhaps repeating the analysis for themselves, while expert reviewers assess it.

Articles are checked by our in-house editorial team (provided by F1000 Research Limited) who ensure that each submitted article is (co-)authored by a Gates-funded researcher and is appropriate in terms of scope and format and that the writing is comprehensible. We also check that article submissions are complete, not plagiarized, and that they meet ethical standards. Finally, we support authors by making sure that citations to all supporting data are included with the article, that the methods section contains adequate protocol information to make the data useful, and that all requirements in our article guidelines are met.

Posters, slides and documents do not undergo the same editorial checks; a brief check for topic, relevance and appropriateness is conducted in-house before they are given a permanent identifier (DOI).

As peer review takes place after publication, authors can submit a new version of their article that addresses any concerns or shortcomings that were identified during the peer-review process. Once a new version of an article is published, the reviewers are asked to re-review the article and check whether their concerns have been addressed.

All versions of an article are accessible, each with their own DOI (digital object identifier) and may be cited individually. The most recent article version is displayed as the default, and older article versions display a clear notification that newer versions are available.

All versions of every article are retained and are accessible to readers, but if you visit an older version of an article, for example via a citation, a message will appear on-screen to alert you that there is a newer version available. If you have stored a version of the article's PDF in a reference manager or on your computer, you can ensure it is the most recent version by using the CrossMark button: when you click it you will be able to see immediately if newer versions of the article are available.

No - articles awaiting peer review in Gates Open Research are officially published (following basic editorial checks). You can cite papers that are awaiting peer review (for example in manuscripts, CVs, or grant applications), because the citation includes details of the peer review status, making it clear to everyone what stage of peer review the article has reached. Readers who later follow the citation link to view the paper will be able to see its current peer review status.

Not quite - most importantly, 'Not Approved' does not mean 'Rejected'. It simply means that the reviewer considers the current version of the article not to be of a high enough standard; they may have identified some flaws that seriously undermine the results and conclusions, unless they are fixed. The article remains published and a future revised version, if the reviewers judge it to be sufficiently improved, may then be given an 'Approved' or 'Approved with Reservations'.

The term 'Approved' means that the reviewer considers the article to be technically sound, and has either no or only minor revisions.

'Approved with Reservations' means that the reviewer believes the paper has academic merit, but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions.

In every case, even when all reviewers approve the article, future versions are welcome.

You can revise your article at any time by publishing a new version, which will be displayed as the default. There are no extra APC charges for publishing a revised version of your article, and we would encourage you to revise your article in response to peer review reports. If we are expecting further peer review reports to be submitted in the near future, we may sometimes recommend that you wait until the reports are published. However, as our publishing process is entirely driven by the authors, it is your decision when you feel the time is right for a revision.

To submit a revised or updated version of your article, you must be signed into the submitting author’s Gates Open Research account. Please download the document provided on the Submissions page and ensure that track changes are turned on whilst editing the document. More information on how to create a new version, please visit Article Guidelines (new versions).

No. Once your article has been published on Gates Open Research, it has a formal citation with a DOI, which means that we must retain a permanent record of the full content and not change or remove it. If you would like to change your article, you can publish a new version; this way, someone looking for your original article will be automatically redirected to the new and revised version. If you discover there is something seriously wrong with the whole paper, such as your samples getting mixed up or the key results were generated using a faulty reagent, you can ask us to mark the article as “retracted” and add a note explaining what happened. See details of our correction, replacement, and retraction policies.

Yes. We name the reviewers and publish their reports alongside the article. Everyone visiting an article page or viewing its PDF can see all peer review reports, reviewer names, and comments.

Peer review reports are vital to ensuring that proper rigor is applied to research evaluation. They offer an objective critique that adds value to the article for authors, the scientific community, and broader readership.

When peer review reports are open, both authors and reviewers can engage with each other to ensure proper rigor is applied to verifying the results and conclusions of the article. Additionally, as shown in randomized controlled trials, publicly accessible, signed peer review reports tend to be better written and more constructive than anonymous closed reports.

It is also important to see the range of reviews the papers receive – positive, negative and neutral – which often reflects the real breadth of expert opinion in controversial and cutting-edge areas of science.

Furthermore, reviewers devote an immense amount of time and effort to reviewing another scientists' work and advising them on how to improve it. With open peer review, the reviewer can be recognized and acknowledged for their time and expertise.

Constructive criticism is a core part of a reviewer's job, so peer review reports often contain suggestions for improvements or insights into a paper's weaknesses. Our peer review reports are no different in this regard. What does make Gates Open Research different is that you can respond to your reviewers, to clarify and explain. And if a reviewer points out errors or omissions in your paper, or suggests ways to improve it, you can publish a revised version that addresses these issues.

Peer reviewers are asked to focus on whether the presented research has academic merit and presented in sufficient detail for others to reproduce, not on the extent of novelty or interest. As experts in the field, the reviewers might judge a published article to not be sound science, or to require significant changes before it can be considered sound. Consequently, on rare occasions, some published papers may be unanimously negatively reviewed.

However, the article is never ‘rejected’ and authors can submit a revised version of their article to address the reviewers' criticisms; there are no time constraints imposed by an editor, so if extensive revisions are required, authors can spend as much time as needed to address any issues. Authors can at any point defend their work with a comment that is posted in response to the critical reviewer(s).

If authors feel that a reviewer has been unfairly negative about their work, they can also request a new reviewer on either the original version or any revised version of their article. If the authors feel that multiple reviewers have been unfairly negative, they should contact editorial@gatesopenresearch.org to discuss their concerns, to ensure that the peer review process remains unbiased.

Reviewers are formally invited by the in-house editorial team (provided by F1000 Research Limited) (as is the case with most journals). The editorial team are primarily responsible for identifying suitable reviewers; however, the authors are welcome to suggest additional reviewers if they wish- all reviewers, including those from authors, are checked to ensure they are suitable to review before they are invited to contribute a report. Prospective reviewers who have collaborated or are currently collaborating with any of the authors are not eligible to review the article in question. Reviewers are also asked to declare any competing interests.

The in-house editorial team (provided by F1000 Research Limited) team administers the peer-review process on behalf of the authors. We contact the reviewers and assist them during the peer review. We ask that authors do not contact the reviewers directly as this can influence the objectivity of their reviews.

• Immediately on publication, and until the first peer review report is published, the article is labelled as AWAITING PEER REVIEW - as part of the article title and in the Open Peer Review summary box within the article HTML and PDF.
• As soon as a peer review report is published alongside the article, the current approval status is displayed. As additional reports are received, the approval status is updated.
• Once an article receives two ‘Approved’ statuses, or two ‘Approved with Reservations’ statuses and one ‘Approved’ status, it will be indexed in various bibliographic databases.

We encourage unsolicited open scientific discussion on all articles. Such contributions are published through our Comment system, and according to our policies anyone who wishes to comment on an article will be asked to declare any competing interests, along with their full name and affiliation.

While we welcome open scientific debate and discussion, we will not tolerate abusive behaviour towards our authors and reviewers via our Comment system or via social media. In extreme cases we will consider contacting the affiliated institution to report the abusive behaviour of individuals.

For papers submitted prior to August 2024, all articles will appear in Google Scholar. Once an article has passed peer review, i.e. it has received at least two ‘Approved’ statuses, or one ‘Approved’ and two ‘Approved with Reservations’ statuses from independent and invited peer reviewers, it will be indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Scopus, British Library, Crossref and DOAJ. Articles deemed in scope will also be indexed in the CABI databases CAB Abstracts or Global Health. If an article is indexed, all versions, along with the peer review reports, are deposited.

For articles submitted after August 2024, they will first be published as preprints on our associated preprint server, Verixiv, and will undergo peer review there. Only once they have met the ‘passed peer review’ threshold will the version of record then be published on Gates Open Research where they will benefit from all the indexers that Gates Open Research works with.

All articles that pass peer review are archived in PubMed Central and the British Library; all our articles at any stage of peer review are also indexed by Portico. Data and code associated with articles are only stored in repositories that we have approved based on (among other things) their archiving policies.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation requires the data underlying the results are made available without barrier or restriction upon publication of an article.

If there is a subject-specific repository for the type of data you are submitting, such as PDB for protein structures, we ask that you deposit the data there. For more information about suitable repositories and providing, preparing and hosting of data, please see our data preparation guidelines. For anything else, please contact us and we’ll be happy to advise on the best way to make your data available.

We recommend the use of the CC0 (Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication) license for any datasets that are made available with your Gates Open Research article.

If the data genuinely cannot be anonymized adequately to address all security or patient confidentiality issues (for example, using the HIPAA Privacy Rule's De-Identification Standard), then it can usually be stored in an access-controlled database; in such cases, we require that all researchers who meet the necessary criteria be given access to review the data on request.

The overarching rule is that there should be enough data provided that another researcher could reanalyse and/or try to reproduce your study. If you are unsure, please contact the editorial team and we will provide some guidance.

Documents are research outputs that are useful to share but do not require, or lend themselves to, formal peer review. Gates Open Research publishes grant reports as documents and will develop other formats not traditionally published in journals, such as, for example, policy documents or guidelines.

Documents must meet certain criteria (see Document policies), adherence to which is checked through a basic editorial screen, which is less comprehensive than the article pre-publication check.

Unlike articles, documents are not peer reviewed and they therefore do not get indexed in standard bibliographic databases, such as PubMed/PubMed Central.

A comprehensive database of current self-archiving policies for journals and publishers can be found at SHERPA-RoMEO, which summarizes where research that hasn't been peer reviewed can be deposited, and any conditions that are attached to that deposit. If you are unsure about the journal you plan to subsequently submit your work to then we strongly recommend that you contact the journal(s) asking for their views prior to submission of your poster or slideset.

You can deposit posters, slides and documents that relate to papers submitted to, or already published in, a journal, but you cannot submit an article that has already been published.

Please bear in mind, however, that you may have assigned the copyright for figures and tables that were also used in the paper to the publishers. If so, you should ensure that you have permission from the journal to reuse those figures/tables before you submit the poster or slide to Gates Open Research.

Yes, you can share your poster or slides on multiple sites. You will end up with multiple DOIs for your content if you use both Figshare and Gates Open Research, but the DOI generated by Gates Open Research will only point to your poster or slides on our site.

Many societies hold the copyright of the conference abstracts, so they can be published in their journals. We therefore ask that you do not use the abstract you submitted to avoid any possible copyright infringement, but instead write a short separate summary that can be published alongside your poster or slides on Gates Open Research.

All posters and slides on Gates Open Research are clearly labelled that they are not peer reviewed.

Posters, slides and documents on Gates Open Research will receive a unique permanent identifier (DOI) and are date-stamped, so by submitting the work, you will be able to show priority. If you are ready to publish it formally then you can of course convert it into a short article and have it published and then transparently peer reviewed on Gates Open Research.

Most posters, slides and documents are published under a CC BY license, but other CC licenses may apply, as indicated on each research output’s published page under the image.

For papers submitted prior to August 2024, we have adapted the traditional system of article citation to include two additional elements - the article version number and the number of peer review reports that have received 'Approved', 'Approved with Reservations' or 'Not Approved' statuses. This information is placed in square brackets immediately after the article title to avoid it being accidentally removed on copying. All articles are assigned a DOI (digital object identifier). An article should be cited like this:

Authors. Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. Gates Open Res YEAR, volume: publication number (doi).

The full citation for an article can be obtained by clicking the Cite button on the article page (next to the Abstract).

Each poster, slide or document has its own DOI (digital object identifier) and can be cited using this DOI. The full citation can be obtained by clicking the Cite button on the poster, slide or document page. They should be cited like this:

Authors. Poster title. Gates Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi).

Authors. Slides title. Gates Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi).

Authors. Document title. Gates Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi).

All peer review reports associated with Gates Open Research articles are assigned a DOI (digital object identifier) on publication. This means that they can be cited independently from the article. The full citation for a peer review report can be obtained by clicking the Cite button next to the peer review report. The correct format for a peer review report citation is:

Reviewer name(s). Peer review Report For: Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. Gates Open Res Year, Volume: Publication number (doi)

Source datasets associated with Gates Open Research articles are deposited in repositories that meet certain criteria. Articles include a "Data Availability" section outlining where the source data can be found, including the permanent identifier the dataset(s) have been assigned by the repository and a reference with details of how to cite the dataset(s).

Gates Open Research articles (as well as posters, slides and documents) are published under a CC-BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and leaves the copyright of the article with the current copyright holder (usually the author or their institution). As the specific version of the CC-BY license applied may change due to periodic updates, the copyright information is shown below the abstract.

Gates Open Research supports the ORCID initiative, which provides every researcher with a unique digital identifier. We are keen to see it adopted on a wider scale and we encourage the use of ORCID iDs amongst our authors. Submitting authors are required to connect their ORCID iD at the point of submission and when the work is published, all co-authors are sent a link by email that allows them to connect their iD and add the article to their ORCID profile. Additionally, any registered user can connect their iD at any time, via the My pages.

We have been working with ORCID and CASRAI so that peer review reports can be integrated into ORCID profiles, enabling reviewers to receive full credit for the input they’ve provided. When your peer review report is published, you will be sent a link via email that will enable you to easily add this report to your ORCID profile.

Yes, once you have connected your iD to Gates Open Research, all work that is published with you named as an author, whether an article or a peer review report, will automatically be added to your ORCID account.